"Angry" Money: Romney will likely outspend Obama in 2012 election race

[MCWAY]

Yep, Obama's just cruising to re-election, ain't he?

Michael Barone: 'Angry' money gives GOP, Romney edge 




There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth as, in the spring, it appeared that forces supporting Mitt Romney would be able to raise about as much money as those supporting Barack Obama. There's even more now that it seems likely that the pro-Romney side will raise and spend more money than the pro-Obama side.

Four years ago, the Obama forces heavily outspent those supporting John McCain. The Obama campaign had enough money to target -- and carry -- heretofore Republican states like North Carolina and Indiana.

That experience made the Democrats spoiled. The prospect that the other side would have as much money as they do struck them as a cosmic injustice. The prospect that it would have more -- heaven forfend!

They like to blame this situation on the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which allows corporations and unions to spend money on political speech. They did so even after their defeat in the June 5 Wisconsin recall election, in which Citizens United had no effect because fundraising was governed by state campaign finance laws.

What's really interesting is that, if current projections are right, this will be the third election in a row in which the party holding the White House will be outspent by the opposition.

In 2004, incumbent Republican George W. Bush's side was outspent narrowly by those opposing him and favoring Democrat John Kerry. One reason is heavy spending by billionaire George Soros, about which we heard few complaints from those now decrying the billionaire Koch brothers' spending as a threat to democracy.

In 2008, Barack Obama broke his promise to rely on public financing and raised and spent about $750 million. About half as much was spent on behalf of John McCain, who accepted public financing.

Now, despite the clout any incumbent president has, Democrats are likely to be outspent by Republicans.

All of which tends to undermine the case made for campaign spending limits. In the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, the Supreme Court said limits on campaign contributions were constitutional. They didn't violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech because they were intended to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.

In effect, the Court said that you can abridge First Amendment rights in order to limit "smart money" contributions. Smart money, by definition, goes only to incumbents and candidates with a good chance of winning.

But in our last two presidential elections and apparently in this one, the smart money going to the party in power has been outweighed by "angry money" going to the party out of power.

The billionaires and the many, many others fueling the anti-Bush coffers in 2004 believed that the 43rd president had lied America into an unjustified and probably unwinnable war. I didn't agree, but, hey, it's a free country -- and people should be free to try to elect the candidate of their choice.

In 2008, Barack Obama raised a lot of "hope" money and, since it looked like a Democratic year, a lot of smart money. But angry money from Bush-haters helped propel his total take to record levels.

This year, there's no doubt that the billionaires and the many, many others contributing to the Romney campaign and pro-Romney super PACs are angry about the Obama Democrats' policies and believe they will be harmful to the nation.

In sum, angry money seems to be trumping smart money in American politics these days.

Which leads one to wonder whether the increasingly Sisyphean project of restricting campaign contributions is worth pursuing any longer.

The Supreme Court in Citizens United and other cases seems to be edging toward a reversal of Buckley v. Valeo. There may be five votes in favor of giving political speech the same First Amendment treatment as student armbands, nude dancing and flag burning.

That would just restore the priorities of the Framers, who were sure interested in protecting political speech much more than these other things.

American voter turnout has been rising, and so has Americans' willingness to contribute money to political causes they think important. These are not negative trends, though incumbents targeted in attack ads tend to think so.

The apparent Republican edge in spending this year, like the Democratic edge in 2004, was evidence of widespread and heartfelt opposition to an incumbent president. It's a sign of civic health, not sickness.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/money-359656-obama-campaign.html

[240 is Back]

94% of the time, the person who spends more will win.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Yep, Obama's just cruising to re-election, ain't he?

Michael Barone: 'Angry' money gives GOP, Romney edge 




There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth as, in the spring, it appeared that forces supporting Mitt Romney would be able to raise about as much money as those supporting Barack Obama. There's even more now that it seems likely that the pro-Romney side will raise and spend more money than the pro-Obama side.

Four years ago, the Obama forces heavily outspent those supporting John McCain. The Obama campaign had enough money to target -- and carry -- heretofore Republican states like North Carolina and Indiana.

That experience made the Democrats spoiled. The prospect that the other side would have as much money as they do struck them as a cosmic injustice. The prospect that it would have more -- heaven forfend!

They like to blame this situation on the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which allows corporations and unions to spend money on political speech. They did so even after their defeat in the June 5 Wisconsin recall election, in which Citizens United had no effect because fundraising was governed by state campaign finance laws.

What's really interesting is that, if current projections are right, this will be the third election in a row in which the party holding the White House will be outspent by the opposition.

In 2004, incumbent Republican George W. Bush's side was outspent narrowly by those opposing him and favoring Democrat John Kerry. One reason is heavy spending by billionaire George Soros, about which we heard few complaints from those now decrying the billionaire Koch brothers' spending as a threat to democracy.

In 2008, Barack Obama broke his promise to rely on public financing and raised and spent about $750 million. About half as much was spent on behalf of John McCain, who accepted public financing.

Now, despite the clout any incumbent president has, Democrats are likely to be outspent by Republicans.

All of which tends to undermine the case made for campaign spending limits. In the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, the Supreme Court said limits on campaign contributions were constitutional. They didn't violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech because they were intended to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.

In effect, the Court said that you can abridge First Amendment rights in order to limit "smart money" contributions. Smart money, by definition, goes only to incumbents and candidates with a good chance of winning.

But in our last two presidential elections and apparently in this one, the smart money going to the party in power has been outweighed by "angry money" going to the party out of power.

The billionaires and the many, many others fueling the anti-Bush coffers in 2004 believed that the 43rd president had lied America into an unjustified and probably unwinnable war. I didn't agree, but, hey, it's a free country -- and people should be free to try to elect the candidate of their choice.

In 2008, Barack Obama raised a lot of "hope" money and, since it looked like a Democratic year, a lot of smart money. But angry money from Bush-haters helped propel his total take to record levels.

This year, there's no doubt that the billionaires and the many, many others contributing to the Romney campaign and pro-Romney super PACs are angry about the Obama Democrats' policies and believe they will be harmful to the nation.

In sum, angry money seems to be trumping smart money in American politics these days.

Which leads one to wonder whether the increasingly Sisyphean project of restricting campaign contributions is worth pursuing any longer.

The Supreme Court in Citizens United and other cases seems to be edging toward a reversal of Buckley v. Valeo. There may be five votes in favor of giving political speech the same First Amendment treatment as student armbands, nude dancing and flag burning.

That would just restore the priorities of the Framers, who were sure interested in protecting political speech much more than these other things.

American voter turnout has been rising, and so has Americans' willingness to contribute money to political causes they think important. These are not negative trends, though incumbents targeted in attack ads tend to think so.

The apparent Republican edge in spending this year, like the Democratic edge in 2004, was evidence of widespread and heartfelt opposition to an incumbent president. It's a sign of civic health, not sickness.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/money-359656-obama-campaign.html

You can thank Crossroads GPS....a very dirty SuperPac with manipulated the tax code to hide its donors

[MCWAY]

You can thank Crossroads GPS....a very dirty SuperPac with manipulated the tax code to hide its donors

Good! That means Team Obama can't threaten and intimidate donors, who dare to cough up money to Obama's opponent.

As usual, when the playing field is level, the Dems cry and whine, because defeat is on the horizon. I guess it's hard for them to raise money, when they can't force it out of people (i.e. union dues).

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Good! That means Team Obama can't threaten and intimidate donors, who dare to cough up money to Obama's opponent.

As usual, when the playing field is level, the Dems cry and whine, because defeat is on the horizon. I guess it's hard for them to raise money, when they can't force it out of people (i.e. union dues).

There's never been a case where donors were threatened and intimidated.  Its ridiculous.  The problem is that you simply don't know where the money comes from, what backroom deals were made,....pretty much the "what's in it for them".



Now Obama does have one similar to it called Priorities USA with is doing the same thing......but the fact remains that this type of "backroom deals donations" only end up hurting the economy......


Remember that "Bailout fund where the banks got a blank check for billions of dollars.....we don't need that shit happenning again

[MCWAY]

There's never been a case where donors were threatened and intimidated.  Its ridiculous.  The problem is that you simply don't know where the money comes from, what backroom deals were made,....pretty much the "what's in it for them".

Incorrect!!!

FRANK VANDERSLOOT, CEO, MELALEUCA: Romney.

O'REILLY: I'm sorry. Romney fundraiser. And the Romney campaign people... reelection people got wind that you gave a million bucks to this PAC. So, what did they do?

VANDERSLOOT: Well, on April 20, they published a list of eight individuals, supposedly with, they said, less than reputable records. News to me. I thought I had a good record. But...

O'REILLY: They published it where? Where did they publish?

VANDERSLOOT: Published it on a -- on a Web site, KeepingGOPHonest.com.

O'REILLY: Ok. So it was on a Democratic Web site.

VANDERSLOOT: It was President Obama's.

O'REILLY: President Obama's...

VANDERSLOOT: Paid by President Obama.

O'REILLY: ... re-election campaign. All right. So your name is in there. And they're saying that you are disreputable. And they're, you know... and they do this to me all the time, Mr. Vandersloot. So don't feel bad.

So they list a whole bunch of things that they say that you did that were wrong. But you said, "Look, I'm just an honest businessman." All right? Now, what happened to your business in lieu of that? What happened?

VANDERSLOOT: Well, when I first saw the list, I thought, "Uh-oh. I thought, "This is scary." And within hours of that, then all kinds of things started appearing on the Internet, suggesting all kinds of accusations against me, rewriting history, as it were, about all kinds of things I was supposedly guilty of. And...

O'REILLY: Did it impact your business directly?

VANDERSLOOT: Well, it did right away, that first day. Phone calls started coming in. We had customers who said they wanted to cancel. People who...

O'REILLY: Because you were a mean guy, you're a rat? They wanted to cancel because you're just a lousy guy, they read that on the Net?

VANDERSLOOT: Well, they hit me first with -- they said that I hated gay people and I was anti-gay, which...

O'REILLY: You're antigay. So anybody who was buying your products who were gay said, "I'm not going to buy products from this guy."

VANDERSLOOT: We have a lot of people we work with and deal with in the business world.

O'REILLY: They basically slimed you; they smeared you.

VANDERSLOOT: They did.

O'REILLY: OK. So your response to the smear was to do what? This kind of publicity?

VANDERSLOOT: We -- no. We created a -- I started having conference calls with our customers. I started to -- explaining my real positions and what our real history was.

O'REILLY: You had to do that retail stuff. You had to call your customers and distributors and tell them who you really were?

VANDERSLOOT: Sure. Yes, we did. Then we put up a Web site of our own, FrankVanderslootResponds .com, to try to handle all of these accusations.

O'REILLY: Has it worked?

VANDERSLOOT: It did to a degree. It did to a degree.

O'REILLY: It stopped the bleeding somewhat?

VANDERSLOOT: Well, we lost a couple hundred customers so far. And then we started getting that turned around. And then thankfully, Kim Strassel from the Wall Street Journal did an article this last Friday, and then everything's turning around now in heading in the...

O'REILLY: Some believe -- some believe this is economic terrorism. Not economic, political terrorism. That targeting a businessman like you running an honest business because of your freedom to donate who you want to donate to, but try to ruin you personally and professionally, that's terrorism, political terrorism. Do you see it that way?

VANDERSLOOT: Well, I have these two questions, Bill, to President Obama. Why did you publish a list? Why?

O'REILLY: But he doesn't know anything about it. I'm not making excuses for his people.

VANDERSLOOT: ...his people.

O'REILLY: I don't think he micromanages.

VANDERSLOOT: He surely put the people in charge to make those accusations.




http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/05/15/obama-campaign-targets-romney-donor

Now Obama does have one similar to it called Priorities USA with is doing the same thing......but the fact remains that this type of "backroom deals donations" only end up hurting the economy......


Remember that "Bailout fund where the banks got a blank check for billions of dollars.....we don't need that shit happenning again

This is all about the left, throwing a tantrum, because the right can now match them, dollar for dollar. And, in some cases, they can exceed them. It was Obama who reneged on the campaign finance rules for his 2008 campaign. Now, Romney has raised more money than Obama has two months in a row.